Endovascular Instead of Open Surgical Repair of Axillosubclavian Artery Injuries: An Evolving Paradigm Shift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Axillosubclavian injuries (ASI) comprise a small proportion of vascular injuries, yet their morbidity and mortality is high. This is often attributable to non-compressible bleeding in the apical thorax, hemodynamic instability, and the anatomically challenging location of these vessels making them difficult to access and control quickly. While the traditional management of ASI was with open surgical repair (OSR), recent years have seen an evolution towards less invasive endovascular repair (EVR). In patients with these injuries, EVR may be a safer alternative that achieves similar immediate results with significantly lower complication and mortality rates than the highly morbid open surgical option. In this article, we review and compare the two approaches, providing an overview of patient selection, anatomic considerations, techniques, postoperative management, and outcomes. With the advent of EVTM and more trauma team members capable of endovascular management of vascular trauma, a paradigm shift towards EVR for ASI is taking place.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".